It adds up to $millions
All but one tax was voted in unanonymously--tax, tax, and tax. The message was loud and clear--Screw Granny making $600 a month on social security--tax everyone more because, because, because. The electric rate will go down as far as the conservation tax and public service tax. The City is throwing us a bone to make us believe that we are getting some sort of big deal. They would not hear of putting street lights on the electric bill. It would defeat their purpose of fooling all of us that our electric rates are down. Reduced Electric charges will probably mean a buck a month for me, if I'm lucky.
Staff has negotiated a three year contract with Government Services Group for special assessment development services in the amount of $32,541.00. The contract requires Government Services Group to develop a street light assessment program to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 beginning October 1.
BUDGETARY IMPACT? Anywhere from $20 or $50 per household (that is their description in the back-up) in order to generate $300,000. Can anyone see how pathetic this is? How many households are there? What about businesses? Can't you just see arbitrary costs being thrown over into this account down the road? Abuse can happen. You got the tax. Can't you just picture it now? All of a sudden it's tripled in cost. Other than the Commission, Staff and one citizen who goes around the world on vacation every year, the idea is everyone should pay their fair share; taxes should be equitable. What a crock.
The City is full of it. They want to raise revenue; that is the bottom line. If we can't get it from property taxes we will come in the back-end and get it that way. No one is off the hook for taxes--the poor will pay the same as the rich and we ( the City) say it's justified, equitable and fair. So there. After what they did last night, the City will be raising millions. Somehow they spent all their reserves. On what? It never has been explained other than the CM saying well, if you want services, etc.-- putting the blame back on the citizens. City Staff are really the ones who caused all of these tax increases.
Put the blame where it belongs--atrocious management of the past that allowed our sub-regional sewer customers to not pay what they owe and allowing every other deadbeat to get away with not paying their bills with some commercial accounts on special deals. Just look at the past-dues on the electric alone. All the rest of us pay for that crap. Another cause--the Unions with their horrible contracts and they still want and want and want. Oh, and the law suits, we can't forget them.
Stanton' explanation? She says that they want to diversify in the ways in which they raise funds and it is a "healthy way" to tax. Ed Fry says it is "more equitable" and "more fair." He is a company man, is he not? This is the typical sales job you get when someone wants to tax you. They give you all sorts of reasons to justify the tax. Last night they had the rate study company there with detailed explanations even going so far as to tell us, "well the tax is not as high as we expected it to be...feel good about that...you lucky bastards." And they don't even know how many street lights we have in this city.
If I were the Commission and Peter Timm agreed with me, I would question my inner self immediately to see how fu**ed up it all is. I was so fed up and bored with it all I had to leave because no matter what I had to say was not even going to be taken with a grain of salt. Not one commissioner sympathized with the taxpayer.
Street lights on Lake Osborne Drive light a County Road. All sorts of people use and need these lights on a road maintained by Palm Beach County. It is public safety. Everyone driving down any street in this city needs the lights, uses the lights, whether or not that driver is from Tim Buck Too or Lake Worth. It is totally insane to charge us a special tax for street lights. Grasping at straws to make $300,000 lousy dollars, the start of the snowball.
Mayor Waterman says that she does not want this to be a disingenuous fee and asked how many streets do not have street lights? She feels that the cost of service of $300,000 should be divided evenly between all the properties which staff states would be an improper methodology. She suggested that it be billed on the Utility bill and not hire a consultant. I suggest that it stay on the ad-valorem tax bill and stop cooking up ways to grab the cash. And it is disingenuous Mayor. We, the taxpayer, can see that.
This assessment is nothing more THAN ANOTHER TAX because ad-valorem taxes are down and the City needs every buck it can get. Golden said it is more equitable and makes the motion to improve a contract with Government Services Group to find ways to further assess the residents. For me and many others, this will be a 100% tax.
The commission voted "yes" on a 4/1, with Scott Maxwell dissenting, to approve this three year contract in order to devise other assessments that they can get away with to screw us even more down the road. Next it will be your sidewalk improvements. What about a park? Anyone living near a park could be assessed for that. Living next to the golf course? You guys are screwed. See the possibilities of this Study? It is the start of all things bad. Can you even imagine a commission voting to use tax payer dollars to find ways to tax the stupid taxpayer more? We should have complained a few years ago when they put the stormwater on our non-advalorem, another slush fund for inefficiency.
Overall these tax increases may seem like nickel and dimes but it means millions to the City of Lake Worth. Excuse this blog. I am venting for whatever good that will do for us poor slobs who live in this City.
It was an interesting discussion last night. Mayor Waterman is usually well spoken, but I would have offered her another argument in this case. Her suggestion was valid for the Utilities bill option. Reason being, it hits ALL the utilities users rather than just the homeowners. CM Stanton had a valid point about not just putting everything on utilities.... however if the City contracted with the utilities to do the lighting it would not be improper...just business. As long as the paper trail worked. I see it as a way to have the cost spread out amongst more people, so it is smaller for each. There are probably more renters out there than mid to low income home owners. Not all things should be done this way, but I think it should be a something that is looked at on a case by case basis.
ReplyDeleteLW has a mapping system that was inventoried that has all the street lights and security lights in it, the numbers could have been produced with a key stroke. The staff is a problem, they have never kept up with the data input, not only lighting but they have no work order system to collect information from.................................................... Someone needs to explain to these people, commissioners included the difference between a street light and a security light and how each are paid for, they don’t know the difference.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should be furious but it will end up being business as usual and we are all sheep to slaughter.
ReplyDeletelynn, in an earlier post you broke down the different assessments and taxes. My concern is the charges per parcel of land. Is a 12 unit apartment building on a 50 by 135 ft lot going to pay the same assessment( $ 330 for fire) as a single family on the same size lot? If so, this is a flawed system.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel it is an unfair tax but my biggest conceren is what do we expect to happen in the future? What other basic services that we have always received be thrown over on a special assessment in order to free up millage to tax us all to death and to circumvent the 10 mil law? They can possibly do this with a lot of services and this Study group will be exploring all the opportunities for our City to do that very thing.
ReplyDeleteIs this possibly a question for the IG? Is it "illegal" to put so many things on our tax bill that are not taxes anymore, only because they tell us they are not taxes anymore?
ReplyDeleteThis political correctness is killing us. IT'S A TAX!! Put it on THE TAX BILL!! Spend LESS!!!
How about a bunch of our $100K per year salaried staff, and there is a bunch of 'em, to take a reduction in pay like many of us have had to.
Name any amount of things that government has started, like seat belt laws, or red light cameras. It's the camel's nose under the tent scenario.
This is Obama country--you tax your way out of it or print more money.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the IG could more her office and entire staff to Lake Worth and they would have enough work for more than a year.
ReplyDeleteThese assessments are nothing more than taxes and there is no end in sight with Stanton in charge. The CM is supposed to work for the City Commission who are supposed to work for the citizens for Lake Worth. Somehow this process has been changed to the CM runs everything, the Commission reports to the CM and the citizens are tolerated at best.
Something needs to CHANGE!
I sincerely question the necessity. I could glean $15 - $20 million out of the electrical utility alone
ReplyDeleteReally Lynn? We're supposed to structure our whole fiscal system around Granny who has to live on $7200 a year? She better move to Belle Glade. Or go live with her grandkids. Get real.
ReplyDeleteIf it's so expensive to live here, why are all the immigrants here??
I think it really disgusting that you want people to move out of their own city when some, such as myself have been here forever. Is that your solution? Great stuff. I pay my bills. Always have. All you have to be is FAIR, which you are not. Cut the waste and look at the Utility for the answers.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it so expensive to live here? The immigrants are renters with 20 to a room. So much for your argument.
ReplyDeleteThen if you want to stay get ready to PAY
ReplyDeleteI'll all for more street lights, but come on street lights should come from property tax revenue. I understand why they are doing this property rates are down, but if and when property rates go up, they are not going to delete the assessments.
ReplyDeleteThese are back door taxes and while I welcome the idea that you are caputring more people who were not paying their fair share (because they pay $0 in property taxes or very little) what about the rest of us who are paying high property taxes and now back door taxes, in the form of assessments. This is a tax increase.